captions paid for by nbc-universal television this sunday, a shakeup on the supreme court. liberal justice john paul stevens retires after more than three decades on the court, after a bruising battle over health care, will the second supreme court vacancy, this one in an election year, mark his next big fight with republicans? we'll speak exclusively to the chairman and the ranking member of the judiciary committee, patrick leahy, from vermont and

jeff sessions, republican of alabama. then america's role in the world. how will this week's agreement on nuclear disarmament make the country safer? why are so many friends and foes alike defying the united states? our conversation with secretary of state hillary clinton and secretary of defense robert gates. finally the roundtable takes on the growing left-right divide over the president's leadership, the congressional elections and the politics of the court. columnist for "the new york times" david brooks, chief washington correspondent for "the new york times" david sanger, syndicated "washington post" columnist kathleen parker and former democratic congressman from tennessee and chair of the democratic leadership council, harold ford, junior. first, the politics of the supreme court. the president has another big decision to make, the second court vacancy in two years. how are the white house and

republicans weighing the confirmation battle ahead? joining us to talk about that exclusively, two members at the heart of the debate, senate judiciary committee, chairman patrick leahy of vermont and ranking member jeff sessions of alabama. welcome both of you back to "meet the press." >> thank you, good to be here. >> thank you. >> senator leahy, you conferred with temperature, with the white house. who is he approaching this decision? >> doing it in a very responsible way, doing it very methodically. he wants somebody who is going to be a solid member of the court. he made it very clear he's not looking for somebody that will represent just democrats or just republicans, but to represent americans, to give a voice to americans who are affected, everyday americans who are affected by court decisions. in many cases the court decisions have hurt ordinary americans. he wants somebody that has a sense of what real life is in

america. >> has he worked out whether he wants someone with political experience as opposed to somebody who is in the judicial monastery, like a judge? >> i've often said i wish we could have some people outside the judicial monastery. i think when justice my your came as close to that having been in private practice and a trial judge. i'll let him speak to that. i know he has several extraordinarily good names before him, any one of whom would make a good justice of the supreme court, among the names he's considering. >> senator sessions, when the president spoke about this on friday, he said replacing justice stevens would be somebody who in his mind had to have an independent mind, who would have all the qualifications to be a judge. attend of his statement, he said this -- let me play it for you. >> it will also be someone who, like justice stevens, knows in democracy powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.

>> this was described as a fight tore the little guy, sensibility to the job. how does that sit with you? >> i'm not sure exactly what he meant by that. i would say that any judge that faithfully follows the law, who respects the constitution and understands that he or she is subordinate to that document, really serves the average american. it's when an unelected lifetime appointed judge or five of them use their power, unaccountable power to redefine the meaning of the constitution to effectuate some policy agenda, some empathy, some ideology that they have. that's what threatens the average american. i'm hearing a lot about that, frankly, all over as i travel my state and in airports, that people believe we're losing our constitutional respect, that our government is overreaching, and they're concerned about it. >> senator, as you think about the political climate, this is happening, you've got a bruising

health care battle that has just been waged. republicans have said they are not interested in cooperating with the white house or with this president. do you think this is going to be a big fight with republicans in the white house? >> you know, the answer to that is in the president's hands. i think senator feinstein said it well the other day. she said she believed the president should nominate somebody that would get a very strong vote, 70-plus votes, bipartisan, that they were proven and competent professional. that's the kind of nominee i hope he nominates and that we can support. i would like to be able to support this nominee. but if we have a nominee that evidences a philosophy of judges know best, that they can amend the constitution by saying it has evolved and effectuate agendas, then we're going to have a big fight about that because american people don't want that. >> senator leahy, isn't it important that the president select someone who unites the country? >> well, i think there is --

right now, as justice stevens himself has said, because of some of the decision of the supreme court they're beginning to lose credibility with the mayor condition people. actually, not for the reasons you may think, i agree with what jeff sessions has said. this is the most activist court in my lifetime. they rewrote the law to say women could be paid less than men. they said age discrimination laws won't apply if corporate interests don't want them do. rewrote the law to give exxon mobile a $2 billion windfall. they rewrote the law to say that corporations could come in and medal in elections in this country. all this went against the laws of this country. >> the question i asked is whether you think a nominee should unite the country? >> i think a nominee, if republicans and democrats want to set aside politics, stop listening to the single issue

groups, either the far right or the far left, they can. remember, john paul stevens was nominated by a republican president who was facing election. he was a conservative republican and a democratic-controlled senate confirmed him in 2 1/2 weeks overwhelmingly. what has happened between then and today? >> i want to pin you down on this point. back in 2005 on this program after sandra day o'connor retired, this is your advice to president bush. >> that's why we're going to meet with the president in about a week, going to urge he put somebody who would unite the country, not divide the country. >> yes or no? does that same standard apply to president obama now? >> of course it does. but it also requires people to not take a knee-jerk reaction. one republican leader has already said we may filibuster. he doesn't know who it is going to be. >> we'll get to that in a

moment. let's put some of the names on the short list, this is what's thought to be the short list of names so far. judge diane wood on the 7th circuit u.s. court of appeals. elena kagan, judge garland who sits on the u.s. court of appeals in the d.c. secretary. and secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano. i want to make a disclosure, my wife worked for justice garland. as you look at that lits, is there any non-starter there for you? >> well, i think it's premature to say that. we have a big responsibility to examine their background. this is the only time in the entire process that the american people through their elected representatives have the opportunity to confront the nominee who could have a lifetime appointment for 30 or 40 or even 50 years --

>> you know these jurists, you know these figures. they came up when judge sotomayor was nominated. are you able to say they're well qualified to be on the supreme court? >> i think we better look at that. i'm not prepared to make an announcement before we get into the background on it. no, i'm not. let me just say i disagree with pat's analysis and criticism of the court. i don't think there court is an activist court. i think they've attempted to faithfully follow the law. just because they reach a decision that he may not like does not mean it's an activist court. >> senator sessions, the only -- >> jeff, we wrote it badly, what you're saying it's okay they rewrote the law? that's not what the court is supposed to do. they're supposed to interpret the law, not make law. >> you're exactly right. the court should interpret the law, not make the law and should interpret it in a way that's faithful to the constitution. >> senator sessions, can you

promise an up or down vote on the president's nominee? a filibuster possible? >> i promise a fair hearing, and i promise that the nominee will have a chance to explain any criticisms that are raised. but if the nominee is one that is so activist look lui who has been nominated who has written that the constitution requires welfare and health care to individuals, if it's somebody like that, clearly outside the mainstream, then i think every power should be utilized to protect the constitution -- >> senator sessions you're on record in the past with saying filibusters should not be used against judges. i want to be clear here, you are not taking a filibuster off the table in this particular case. >> we had a big fight over that debate. senator leahy and his side won.

they set a standard that said that, if you have a nominee under extraordinary circumstances, a filibuster is appropriate to use against them. i hope we do not do that. i voted against sotomayor, but that was not a filibuster. i think we'll see how it plays out. depends on the quality of the nominee. i think that's the standard the senate has adopted in rae sent years. >> with all the fury directed at sotomayor, called a racist, still confirmed handily. it's significant that your colleague is not ruling out a filibuster. that's the only area of uncertainty here, the election of scott brown, democrats don't have a bulletproof majority. >> the constitution says that 51 senators can confirm somebody. it doesn't require 60 senators. i don't think there's going to be any kind of a filibuster. this last year we had about

100-some-odd filibusters, totally unprecedented. actually that's the lazy person's way out. the american people pay us and elect us to vote yes or no, not maybe. every time you have a filibuster, you say i'm not going to vote yes or no, but maybe. that's irresponsible. >> final point, chairman. when? when are we going to hear a nomination? >> i think you'll hear it very soon because we'd like to get this wrapped up this summer. >> within weeks? >> i think we'll hear it soon enough to wrap it up this summer. >> you expect the justice to be in place by the start of the term? >> no question. irresponsible to do otherwise. >> to be continued. senators, thank you very much this morning. >> thank you. >> thank you. america's role in the world. how will this week's nuclear treaty make the country safer? why are so many friends and foes alike defying the united states? a con sake with secretary of state hillary clinton and secretary of defense robert gets. plus our roundtable on all the week's political news. david brooks, david sanger,

kathleen parker and harold ford junior, only here on "meet the press."

nuclear disarmament. the threat from iran. my conversation with secretary of state hillary clinton and secretary of defense robert gates after this brief commercial broke.

last week president obama traveled to prag to reduce the nation's nuclear stockpile by 30%. this webbing' eem host a global nuclear summit that begins right here tomorrow in washington. on friday i sat down with secretary of state hillary clinton and secretary of defense robert gates at the pentd gone to talk about nuclear security, the iranian nuclear threat and america's role in the world. >> secretary clinton, let's talk

about the nuclear issues. you have critics on both sides of this decision, those that think it goes too far, weakens america, those who think it doesn't go far enough. if this nuclear disarmament decision represents middle ground, is it enough to make the world safer? >> it certainly is. and i know that this is a very important issue that i thank you for discussing with us, because the president's position is very clear. we will always protect the united states, our partners and allies around the world. our nuclear deterrent will remain secure, safe and effective in doing so. but we also think we will ultimately be safer if we can introduce the idea that the united states is willing to enter into arms treaties with russia to reduce our respective nuclear arsenals and we'll stand against nonproliferation in a way that will perhaps deter

others from acquiring nuclear weapons. so you have to look at the entire package, nuclear posture review, start treaty and the nuclear summit. >> secretary gates, this is not about the u.s. and u.s.s.r. anymore. critics, what they've seized on is this idea that american nuclear power, muscle, sult matly what has deterred aggressors in the past. as you look at this decision, how does this deter a country like iran or north korea from going away from their nuclear ambition? >> first of all, we have still a very powerful nuclear arsenal. the nuclear posture review sets forth a process by which we will be able to modernize our nuclear stockpile to make it more reliable, safer, more secure and effective. we have, in addition to the nuclear deterrent today a couple of things we didn't have in the soviet days. we have missile defense now. that's growing by leaps and

bounds every year, significant budget increase for that, this year both regional and the ground-based enter separate tors. and we have prompt global strike, affording us conventional alternatives on long range missiles that we didn't have before. believe me. the joint chiefs of staff and i would not have wholeheartedly embraced, not only nuclear posture review, but also the start agreement if we didn't think the end of the day it made the united states stronger, not weaker. >> it still doesn't answer the question, if you're in iran and north korea and you've been proliferati proliferating, what's to stop them from continuing down that path just because of this posture? >> first of all, i think it puts us in a much stronger position in terms of going to other countries and getting their support for putting pressure on the iranians and the north koreans. i think it also has potentially a detarrant effect on other countries who might be potential pro live raters as they look at north korea and iran.

>> what is, secretary clinton, the bottom-line threat of all these missiles around the world getting into the hands of terrorist sns. >> it's a serious threat, david. that's why the president convened this nuclear security summit starting monday. we often say the threat of nuclear war, we used to think about it during the cold war, has actually decreased. but the threat of nuclear terrorism has increased. by that we mean there's a lot of nuclear material that is not as secure. it hasn't been destroyed. it isn't under lock and key in many places in the world, particularly in the former soviet union, but not exclusively there. we know that terrorist groups, primarily al qaeda persist in their efforts to obtain enough nuclear material to try to do something that would cause just such mass havoc and terror and damage and destruction, that it would be devastating. and we know that a lot of

countries haven't until relatively recently seen the threat as we see it. remember, we've been working for 18-plus years to diminish the threat in a partnership with russia, and we've worked -- when my husband was president, we started working with some of the nation that is were part of the soviet union to get their nuclear material out. but this hasn't been a high international priority. that's what we intend to make it starting this week. >> let me talk to a related topic, that is trying to deter iran from building a nuclear weapons program. secretary gates, is the notion of iran becoming a nuclear power inevitable at this point? is the strategy of the u.s. government becoming more and more containment? >> no, we have not -- we have not made that -- drawn that conclusion at all. in fact, we're doing everything we can to try and keep iran from developing nuclear weapons. we have -- we're probably going

to get another un security council resolution. that's really -- it's important. but in its own right in terms of isolating iran, but it's also important in terms of a legal platform for organizations like the eu and individual countries to take even more stringent actions against iran. at the end of the day, what has to happen is the iranian government has to decide that its own security is better served by not having nuclear weapons than by having them. it's a combination of economic pressures. it's a combination of more missile defense and cooperation in the gulf to show them that any attack -- we can defend against and react against. i think it's a combination of all of these different options in terms of trying to convince the iranians that they're headed down the wrong path. >> secretary clinton, it raises to me a larger question about the u.s. role in the world.

this president tried engagement as he came into office, engagement with the iranians, with the north koreans. it hasn't worked. they don't want to talk, they don't want to dance with this president. so what is the next phase then? what is america's influence in the world? >> david, i would argue because the president was willing to offer engagement, we actually have more support vis-a-vis north korea and iran than was certainly president when he became president. the fact that iran and north korea have not responded makes our case in a way. if you look at north korea, for example, we now have a very clear understanding with the other members of the six-party talks led by china, that north korea cannot be permitted to just go on its own course, that it has to be pressured to come back into this framework to try to get to the denukization of the peninsula. with iran, a lot of countries were on the sidelines.

their attitude was, the united states are hurling insults, they're not really willing to have any diplomatic engagement. we said, okay, fine, we're willing. we stretched out our hand. the president made extraordinary efforts. it was the iranians who refused. that has brought more people to the table. we have unity in what's called the p5-plus-1, they are meeting in new york as we speak to begin the hard process of coming up with the language of a resolution. >> you don't think the u.s. would have to go it alone on sanctions before going to the united nation sns. >> no, i don't. >> you say there's been all this unity. there's been missed deadlines and you still don't have results. >> i'm a big believer in strategic patience. if we could wave the magic wand and get everybody to move -- that's never been the case in the world. you work through persuasion, present evidence. we've been consistently doing so. as secretary gates just said,

the security council resolution will not in any way forestall us or the eu or other concerned countries from taking additional steps. but it will send a really powerful message. the iranians have been beating down the doors of every country in the world to try to avoid a security council resolution. and what we have found over the last months because of our strategic patience and our willingness to keep on this issue is countries are finally saying, i kind of get it, i get it they didn't cooperate, they're the ones that shut the door and now we have to do something. >> is a nuclear capable iran as dangerous. >> weapons are dangerous. potentially is troubling, too. >> are they capable, too? >> that's an issue upon which intelligence services still differ. our goal is to from prevent them from having luke lar weapons. >> i'm saying it's our ask judgment they're not nuclear capable. >> they neert nuclear capable. is that just as dangerous as

being a nuclear state in your mind? >> only in this respect. how you differentiate. how far have they gone? if their policy is to go to the threshold, but not assemble a nuclear weapon, how do you tell that they have not assembled? it becomes a serious verification question, and i don't actually know how you would verify that. they are continuing to make progress on these programs. it's going slower than they anticipated, but they are moving in that direction. >> we've been talking about our foes. i want to talk about our friends. i think americans are troubled about some of our relationships with friends in the world. hamid karzai, the leader of afghanistan, has done some things recently, tried to establish control over what was supposed to be an independent election commission. he invited the iranian leader to afghanistan in a move that seemed to try to embarrass the u.s. he talked about the u.s. trying to dominate afghanistan. now he made threats apparently to join the taliban.

i think a lot of people are fair in wondering why the american forces should fight and die for people represented by a guy like this. >> go ahead. >> no, go ahead. >> first of all, i think you have to see this guy as -- first of all, the president of afghanistan and of a sovereign country. and when there are attacks on him, on his family and what he perceives to be on afghanistan itself, or insults to the sovereignty of afghanistan, he's going to react, and he's going to react strongly. the fact is, on a day-to-day basis, speaking from our perspective, he has a very effective working relationship with general mcchrystal. he has cooperated with general mcchrystal in going down to kandahar to begin to set the stage as the kandahar campaign gets under way and talking to the local tribal leaders and so on. i think we have to understand

the pressures he's under, but at the same time understand their sensitivity -- this is a country that has been at war for almost two generations. they have had armies come in and leave and who paid no attention to afghan sovereignty. we are working very hard at that. we have to work as hard in our rhetoric as we are in our actions. >> is the message here, don't overreact to some of this? >> absolutely. >> did you not overreact when you spoke to him on the phone? >> i certainly didn't overreact. i think, david, some of what is said is not true. and a lot of others who make claims are short on evidence and very long on rhetoric. this is a very difficult situation, and we are working very closely with not only the president, but there's a whole government that is there. we work well with a lot of the

ministers who are dealing on a day-to-day basis with our civilian and military leadership. we have an international presence that each of our allies are working in different parts of afghanistan. and i personally have a lot of similar think for president karzai and the extraordinary stress he lives under every single minute of every day. i have a little experience in what it's like being in the political arena, and in our country you kind of know it goes with the territory. you put your toe out there -- this is new. this is something afghans don't have experience with, a lot of countries around the world. he's not alone and wondering if he's attacked by some newspaper in the united states, is our government behind it? that's not unusual for us to encounter. i see it all the time in leaders i deal with. >> if there's people who get worried about our allies, frankly, not listening to united states -- take israel, for

example, was the united states blind-sided by the fact that the prime minister decided not to come to this nuclear conference? >> no. that's a decision for the head of government or head of state. gordon brown is not coming, kevin rudd is not coming, king abdullah is not coming from saudi arabia. >> abrupt, though. there have been a couple of abrupt things. >> the indonesians and australians thought it was abrupt when the president said, by the way, i'm not coming on this long, planned trip. the israeli government will be represented at a very high level. they share our deep concern about nuclear terrorism. they want to be at the table as we try to figure out how to make the world safer. >> doesn't make the relationship even more difficult at a difficult time? >> no, not at all. we have a deep and very close relationship between the united states and israel that goes back many years. that doesn't mean we're going to agree on everything. we don't agree with any of our

friends on everything. somewhere a special relationship with great britain, close relationships with france, our oldest ally. it doesn't mean we agree on everything. i think somehow since we're living in a 24-7 news cycle with things popping every minute, a lot is made of a little instead of trying to step back and see the forest instead of the trees. that's what i try to do every day. what are the long-term consequences of what we're doing? you just can't react to every little event that some media outlet wants to blow up. you can't do that. >> final point, a domestic matter. there is this image, which i'm sure you've seen, of you embracing president obama when health care was accomplished. as you might imagine, people in the media could read a lot into that given the history between you and the president and your history with the issue of health care. i just wonder at the end of that process of health care reform being accomplished, whether you viewed that and said this is what i, this is what president clinton ultimately hoped to

accomplish, health care reform in this form. is that how you feel? >> i was thrilled that we finally got health care reform passed. it's been a high priority of mine for many years. i often say i have the scars to show for it. it was a wonderful, historic accomplishment for the american people. and i was thrilled. >> it's what you would have wanted back in '93, '94? >> everything that was done up until this time added to it. a lot of people made contributions going back to president johnson and president nixon and certainly my husband and even president bush. there were building blocks. but getting it across the finish line with the kind of comprehensive reform that our country deserved to have didn't happen until this year, and i'm thrilled by it. >> we'll leave it there. thank you, both. >> thank you. >> thank you. up next, our roundtable takes on the questions of presidential leadership, the

upcoming congressional elections and the politics of picking a new supreme court justice. david brooks, david sanger, kathleen parker and harold ford junior after this brief station break. columnist.

you've senators leahy and sessions. news that this is going to happen fast they said this morning. you've got republicans who aren't taking a filibuster out of the' yags which is the only level of uncertainty in all this. size this up for me. >> first of all, you've got what you see in justice stevens is the change in the way america changed. my favorite story about him, he was in wrigley field when babe ruth called his shot and hit the home run. he's froa different era. he's a moderate, sales right

through. then the conservative establishment rises. we get a polarized era. we get a period where everything is fought over. my sense this time is that what the administration is doing, and we heard it here today from senator leahy, is trying to cut through that left-right by going man of the people versus the powerful. so you're going to have a supreme court where every single member is harvard or yale. a lot of people talked about for the court are harvard or yale. i wouldn't be surprised if they went outside that fraternity and tried to get somebody who reflects where the country is right now, extremely hostile to washington, extremely hostile to the establishment. that will make it hard for republicans to filibuster. >> harold ford, you heard the president said maybe i need somebody with political experience. he's got a very well developed sense of the constition and judicial philosophy. does he want to move in that direction where you can get somebody to build consensus as a politician? >> he'll need tochlt i think david points are right. i heard senator leahy or the

chairman say they're looking for someone with a broader set of experiences. when you consider the kinds of cases, the business cases, regulatory cases, cases involving patents and technology, i think it's likely the names we've heard, all spectacular candidates, are not the complete list. >> interesting. kathleen parker f you look at where republicans are right now, the only uncertainty has to do with the use of the filibuster. scott brown's election matters here. this is how politico described it. conservative activists say they won't ask the republican allys to go to the mat over the president's nominee to replace justice stevens by pressing for the ultimate weapon. instead, they say the nomination of a democrat to the court will be an opportunity to cement the support of the tea party movement, broaden their base and motivate supporters to turn out to support republicans in the midterm elections in november. how do they do all that? >> the republicans are in a real bi because they are now established as the party of not

no, but hell no. that was played in new orleans again recently. and, you know, they want to appear to be open minded and accepting of somebody who would be mainstream. yet, their base is fired up, and they are very angry right now. they've somehow got to harness that anger and dlekt people to the poll. i don't think they'll likely to do the filibuster. i think that's a very unlikely event. but there are other complications that come into play for them. the 29 who voted against sotomayor are now kind of stuck with, well, are we vote for this one, are we going to look like we didn't vote for sotomayor just because she was latina. >> the question of judicial philosophy, we covered the white house together and these questions came up all the time with roberts and alito. this court has moved for to the right. justice stevens said he didn't change, the court changed, and

they want a progressive pushback here. is that where the president's heart is? >> it may be where his heart is. but it may not be where his mind is by the time he's done making this selection. he's thinking this is going to be the dominant domestic political issue between now and the november electionless. he's got to decide how big a fight he wants. i think that's why you heard him lay out his four criteria yesterday for who the next supreme court justice should be, but also why he played up what david pointed out which is that justice stevens really does come from a different era where ideology did not seem to be the dominant issue in a confirmation battle. i think he'd like to get back to that. >> just to return to that point, david, you recall back during the state of the union when the president references the citizens united verse the fcc case, a 5-4 decision. the court rules the government can't ban spending by corporations in canada elections, more money can get

into the political system. this is what he said during the state of the union to really take that all. >> with all due deference to separation of powers, last week the supreme court reversed a century of law that i believe will open the flood gates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections. >> that was a striking commentary from that particular position, but also gets to this idea of what the president thinks the court needs and what a justice ought to have beyond being qualified. >> there's a social context here. somewhere become a divided society based on college education and noncollege education. people without college degrees, lower incomes, higher divorce rates, less social trust. they take a look at people running washington and corporations and they say those people don't get me. that's behind a lot of the anger we see in the country. every single issue reflects that in some way. so what the white house is doing right now is saying, even on the

court, which is sort of an elite, high fal luting organization, we somehow want to tap into that, play to that anger and anxiety of, people don't get us. we'll maybe nominate somebody who will at least reflect the common experience. >> let me move on to the question of foreign policy now. the president this week in prague he signs this disarmment agreement with the president of russia. we see the president on a world stage at an important time with an important agreement. i want to get to some of the particulars about nuclear strategy, about iran and even relationship with with allies. david sanger, let me ask you the larger question. how is this president try to recast america's role in the world and how is that happening? >> david, he came in recasting it on the issue of engagement which you raised with secretaries clinton and gates. he spent the first year basically saying, i am not george bush, and as a result i'm going to reach out with a policy that suggests that america does not necessarily have to be the

exceptional nation where everybody does it our way. what's happened a year later than that? the north koreans and the iranians, as you pointed now the the interview, have not exactly reciprocated. the obama administration has not been able to get a u.n. resolution yet. i think eventually they will against iran. the bush administration at least did get three in its second term. so i think that the next few years for president obama are going to be all about how does he deal with irreconcilable states that the rest of the world doesn't want to take on. and that's what makes iran such a fascinating test case. >> we have picked off -- i agree with david. we've picked often more terrorists in the pakistan-afghanistan border last year than bushel was able to in his last term f. you think about george bush and condy rice, he sent her over saying we're going to build that radar system with

or without your approval. this president has decided to go a different tact adds david laid out. you can't underestimate the power of engagement. secretary clinton's point needs to be taken. the fact that you can say we're doing things differently, i'm not george bush. it sounds simple. really is a powerful statement on the global stage. i would agree with you fully. israeli-palestinian talks, what happens this week with regard to nuclear proliferation and clearly the success we've had in afghanistan. i thought the comments around karzai were most fast nasing with your interview with gates and clinton. it can't be underestimated. >> talk about the nuclear disarmament, questions related to proliferation, be it the summit in washington. the president is really putting this on the agenda. what does this mean in terms of safety in the world, in terms of america's power and, most importantly, america's influence? >> i'm not quite as optimistic

as the folks on that side of the table. i think engagement is very nice. it's lovely to sit down at the table and chat. but engagement is a tool. it's not a foreign policy. and i think that is where the concern comes in among conservatives and particularly when you talk about this issue of exceptionalism, we're not the last word. most americans do think we're exceptional. we've operated traditionally, historically and exceptionally from a position of strength. i think the concern is we're compromising our role and in that profile, particularly in the eyes of weaker nations who have always relied on us to be the big dog and to be someone they can count on. >> we have a situation with foes, as i said, that we're not being listened to. secretary clinton said we tried our best and now we have need unity to begin to act. >> obama has a great presence,

is pretty good at an engagement. as kathleen said, that's a process, not an end. if they're stuck in their views the why iranians, hamas, pakistanis, you're not going to get very far. you have to have a further view about what end state you want. i always thought the problem with the iran policy, we focus too much on the nuclear regime and the weapons, we don't focus on the nature of the regime. the nature is more fragile than the weapon systems. the day that woman nada was shot, that's when they lost their legitimacy. >> david sanger, what are the big questions though about disarmament that came up in the course of the interview and what you talked to the president about recently? >> what i thought was interesting about what secretary gates said to you and what president obama said when we went in to interview him last week on this issue, was that the distinction between an iran that

builds itself right up to the edge of having a weapon and an iran that declears itself to have a weapon, may not be all that big. most people think iranians are at this point way too sophisticated to come out and say we've got a weapon which is what the north koreans did. but instead to do what israel, japan and others have done, which is assemble all the technology so the world simply knows they have the nuclear power. secretary gates said to you, we wouldn't know necessarily when they had actually gone and as september bld a weapon. this raises a really hard question to the point that david raised before which is what is your plan b. if you get to the moment where the iranians have all the pieces together, do the israelis feel they have to act that moment? does the u.s. feel they have to step in and help the israelis act? is that the moment when engagement ends? the president has not yet said what is his red line is out here. and i'm not sure that this

administration yet knows what its red line is. >> kathleen, you write in a column this morning about this complicated relationship with allies lime hamid karzai in afghanistan. you saw that exchange. what was noteworthy is the shift in the administration. here you had the secretary of defense and the secretary of state saying we're not going to react to some of these things. we're going to be more sympathetic toward hamid karzai. he's the guy we have to deal with. this was a significant change. >> it was a shift as of right this minute, right? we've been pretty hard on him. he is the guy that was elected, and he is our man. we created karzai. hets's been under siege from everyone. bauchl pretty much came out swinging during his campaign. he's had every european parliamentarians coming after him. naturally he is going to react. this is the testosterone access of the world. you don't insult him in public and evenings peblth him to sit

back and take it. >> secretary gates made a point of saying that's the level of cooperation that's important and exists, this is our commander on the ground leading our forces, and you've got karzai -- >> it's hard on our troops as well. let's throw that in. this happened in vietnam. i heard a vietnam vet a couple days ago saying our morale was very badly hurt when we felt like we were fighting for a loser. if the united states is not supporting karzai, then how do we expect our troops to feel enthusiastic about their mission. >> clear articulation probably is needed. i would expect the white house to get closer to that. let's be clear, the engagement issue is not a bad thing. if you look at where we are with china, it's likely in the coming weeks, if not coming months, we'll get closer to market forces determining the true value of their currency which will have a direct and immediate impact on our economic stability and growth in our country. we can make the point that on the iranian front, we may not have everything we want, but

president sarkozy was here declaring support and the chinese leaders made clear he's more open. steinberg articulated our support for china in a one china policy, our support of them versus -- but taiwan and tibet not having stability in the united states congress. as much as i would like to have clear articulation, the reality is what would that be? that we'll go to war, take steps beyond where we will today. i think we're making steady progress. it's likely, david, they're going to have to be clearer -- so many davids on this set here. gregory here, to suggest this engagement thing is not working to some extent, i think -- >> let me go a little larger and talk about presidential leadership and put it in the political context. there is an opposition party and

the republicans are trying to figure out how to mount that opposition as we're in an election year. there was a gatherings of republicans, southern republican leadership conference. you heard two prominent republican voices, newt gingrich and sarah palin talking about how republicans position themselves to counter president obama. let's watch that. >> what the left wants to do is say we're the party of no. here is what i want to ask you to encourage every candidate you know, every incumbent you know, every staff person you know, every consultant you know. i think we should decide that we're going to be the party of yes. >> there is no shame in being the party of no if they're proposing, the other side is proposing an idea that violates our values, violates or conscience, violates our constitution? what's wrong with being the party of no or better said by the good november nor of this state, he said, party of no? we're the party of hell no. >> david brooks, assess the gop

right now in terms of mounting this challenge, figuring out where it's going to be -- >> you're turning to the party of maybe over here. palin is great tv, really attractive. gingrich is great tv. he's got a billion ideas, 600 of which are really good. but the fact is the republican party is not palin and not gingrich. it's rob portman who is running for senator in ohio, governor christie in new jersey. these are the people who are actually governing. i happen to feel we pay too much attention to people like palin who is sort of a sub reality figure on some tv show. these are the people actually running. they've actually got it figured out. they're against a lot of what obama is doing. they're the party of yes. they have a whole series of policies. paul ryan from wisconsin can wonk your ear off. that's the real party. palin, the tea party movement is a movement without a structure, without an organization. no movement like that lasts.

>> kathleen, about 20 seconds here. is president obama a different figure for the republicans to try to challenge after health care? has he changed in some way? >> i don't think so. i think he has presented himself as someone who is not afraid to fight. i think the republicans now have recognized they have a true foe in barack obama. they're not going to be able to run over him. he's formidable. we'll leave it there. thank you very much. we'll be right back.

before we go, our thoughts and prayers are with the people of poland as the bodies of the polish president and his wife and other top officials who died in that terrible plane crash in russia were returned home to warsaw this morning. president obama issuing a statement yesterday saying it was a tremendous loss for poland, the united states and the world. that is all for today. we'll be back next week. if it's sunday, it's "meet the press."